The Red Sox are going to sweep the Dodgers. They have been simply incredible this October, particularly their three wins in Houston. Their pitching has been inconsistent, but their defense has been stunning, and their bats have been relentless. Who’s to say that the Red Sox won’t overtake the Cardinals for second most MLB titles?

Boston is a professional sports town. It has been a pro sports town since around 1912. It doesn’t care about the four NCAA hockey teams (yeah, the Beanpot is a thing, but not a big thing). It doesn’t care about Boston College football or basketball. It didn’t care about my U Mass and Marcus Cambymaking it to the Final Four in 1996. It’s pro sports all the way. Only Los Angeles comes close in terms of league championship diversity and frequency. And that’s pretty amazing, given how small Boston is compared to L.A.

What does “a pro sports town” mean? It means that each decade since the 1950s, at least one of its pro-sports teams has won a title (hmm, aside from the 90s, so my argument has a weak spot there, but moving on). The Celtics were unbelievably dominant in the late 1950s and through almost all of the 1960s. In 1967, the Red Sox awakened, ushering in a new era of fan support, revenue, and the quest to be the best team in baseball. They went from less than 4,000 tickets sold per game at Fenway to sellouts for over fifty years. What we’re seeing is the fulfillment of that 1967 dream. The Red Sox are about to add a ninth title to their trophy case - the same number that the Cardinals had at the end of 1982. The Red Sox now have the third most number of titles of any MLB team.

That 1967 Red Sox team didn’t just motivate the Sox. It motivated the other three pro sports clubs. And what we’ve seen since 2001 is a synchronization of their efforts. Boston has celebrated ten titles this century, soon to be eleven. That doesn’t blow. That’s what Boston is good at. Pro sports titles are its thing.

Some cities are great at being financial hubs. Some have a great music, restaurant, cocktail or coffee scene. Some are known as tech hubs. Boston is at least three things: a great higher learning town, a great medicine and biotech town, and the leading pro sports town in the US. Back in the 90s, when I had to describe Boston, I talked about 1967, 1972 and 1975, but I also had to stretch a bit and say that it produced a lot of FBI agents (it still does), and was the Mutual Fund capital of of the US (Fidelity). It had the best hospitals of course, but it couldn’t boast anything in pro sports besides Pedro Martinez being the best MLB pitcher since Sandy Koufax.

The New York-centric media didn’t groan when the Yankees won three consecutive titles (1998-2000). New York has two clubs that will never win another championship -the Jets and the Knicks. It has a National League team that should be making the playoffs more often given its revenues and my support (ha!). It has two NFL clubs that are really New Jersey clubs. One of them has four Super Bowl wins and the city doesn’t seem to care (although they are popular on Wall Street and outside the city). And New York has a decent Original Six hockey club. I would argue that New York is a two club town -the Yankees and the Rangers. Boston is all-in with its four leagues. And that’s what makes Boston the premier pro sports town in America.

Did anyone ever say, “We found another great rock band from Seattle. That blows.” Did a food critic ever write, “Well, Los Angeles has another amazing restaurant. That blows.” No. Boston is about to produce its 11th professional sports title this century. That’s what Boston does. People who complain about Boston winning follow teams that don’t win.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to sob about my Newcastle United, and how its disgusting owner is content to let them fall out of the top league for a third time in nine years. That blows.

I have always liked the Liberty Hotel in Boston since it opened in 2007. The Liberty is one of the bestter adaptive reuse projects of this century, as it turned Boston's nortorious Charles Street Jail into a five-star hotel. Here is a video tour of the hotel in 2017.

The exterior of the old, medieval jail is still intact. It always had a grim and depressing aspect, built next to the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, on the grounds of the Massachusetts General Hospital. The hotel is really imaginative, and makes clever use of the existing architecture. The old jail has been used in a couple of movies, and I think it even appeared once in a Spenser for Hire episode.

I'm afraid this post is going to be a mess. There is no easy way to report on the disappointment that is our capitalist system without writing a book about it. Fortunately, that book was published last summer.

In a summer full of bad news the world over, we in the US should be focused on the five biggest stories that directly effect us: our endless wars, our loss of the Fourth Amendment, our loss of women's reproductive rights, our ongoing water crisis / environmental crisis, and our unsustainable economy.

New York City increasingly relies on executive pay and Wall Street bonuses to keep its treasury full. Once any economy relies on the top 1%, it becomes unsustainable. Even Michael Bloomberg knew this. So the city has had to rely on tourism to make up the gaps. I don't think that is sustainable, either.

This post will focus on our current economy. Simply put, the rich get richer. Here's are just a few angles of the same overall story.

First up, CEO pay is ruining our economy. We now have proof. I can see you are not impressed. Occupy Wall Street tried to make us pay attention, but they didn't succinctly make their case. And now we have articles and books, like the ones above, to prove that Occupy was right, and those kids were on to something. But now we don't give a shit.

But let me elaborate on this a bit more. What does the economy of a city that relies on the top earners look like? How does it function? The answers are right above us, in the new supertall residential buildings going up. In a city in which there is an oversupply of office space, there is a bubble economy in the new luxury residential market.

Who is driving up the prices in new luxury construction? Mainly Wall Street managers and wealthy foreigners. And this price war has helped sustain a real estate appreciation across the whole city that has priced out the middle class. Millions of New Yorkers, whether they care or not, have lost their chance to buy.

Second up, Wall Street. The average Wall Street annual compensation with bonus is $369K. The average white collar NYC salary is $69K. The US median salary is $51K. And over half of New Yorkers make less than $40K. And what is our national economic policy? Be extra nice to those at the top. Given their contributions to the health of the economy, don't they obviously deserve such a large percentage of the income in the city? After all, consider what their taxpayer backed financial manipulations created in 2008. The world has staggered through the deepest recession since World War II, and the authors of this catastrophe have gotten richer every day since. Ah, the wonders of Capitalism.

And third is the current bubble. Looking up and down the Northeast Corridor, one can see that we are in the midst of a dangerous and destructive real estate bubble. While housing in Baltimore and Philadelphia remains affordable, comparitively speaking, the bubble is in full swing in Boston, New York, and Washington DC. Let's take a quick tour.

In Manhattan, the bubble is not done expanding. It wasn't long ago the average sales price of a Manhattan apartment (condo or co-op) exceeded $1 Million. This past fall, it surpassed $1.68 Million. 2014 was simply a blockbuster year for the borough. It marked the continued inflation of a real estate bubble that began in 2002, and survived the national sub-prime explosion. The average price per square foot in Manhattan is over $1,400. Units in Tribeca or those with a view of Central Park, are setting new records above $5,000 and $6,000 per square foot. On the rental side, it was about 15 years ago that we first saw studios pass the $1,000 per month mark. How does $90 per square foot per month sound?

And at the very top of the market, the properties for the top-half of the top 1 percent live in their own bubble that even Tokyo and London do not yet match. The epicenter of this bubble is the new row of super-tall residential towers in the 50s, with offer upper half residents views of Central Park. The entry-level building for this segment, Extell's One 57, has seen its sales grind to a halt while the elite wait for the completion of 432 Park Avenue, which offers more spectacular views and floorplans, and Extell's upcoming 225 West 57th Street, which will set a new height record for residential towers in the western hemisphere.

The Woolworth Building was once the crown jewel of downtown. In some ways, turning it into condominiums for plutocrats nicely summarizes what's happened to the economy, and the once great city of New York.

There had to be a point where the prices in Manhattan would be out of reach for most dual $100K earners. Even the affluent are tiny compared to oligarchs and investment bankers. So they shifted their search to Brooklyn. Now Brooklyn is almost as ridiculous as Manhattan. Wait, did I say almost?

The madness continues. When will the city realize it's sitting on a real estate bubble? And do we really have to be reminded of what inevitably happens to bubbles? But say this for bubbles, they can be fun until they burst.

The high end condos are driving the market, but the law of supply and demand will raise both prices and sales everywhere in New York. At least, until the current bubble bursts, and it hits the fan again. But in the meantime, isn't capitalism fun?

Have you seen the asking price for the penthouse in the yet unbuilt Millennium Tower next to Filene's in downtown Boston? It won't be finished until 2016, so there's still time to buy, if you can come up with $37,500,000. At that low price, it might attract a bidding war. The new apartment building at the TD Garden will feature apartments on the upper floors of $8,000 to $10,000 a month. IN BOSTON. I guess the Manhattanization of Beantown is nearly complete.

For the last 13 months, I have been shocked, dismayed, and heartbroken by my birth city of Boston. I know I am in the minority. But let me explain.

I used to be a proud Bostonian. I'm not sure if I was ever proud to be from the US. But when it came to Boston, I wore my pride and pretty much tried to sell my city to every friend I made who wasn't from there. It's the birthplace of American liberty, I would tell people. It isn't nearly as racist as Spike Lee says it is, I would go on. It's white, sure. But man it is educated. It has the highest number of post graduates in any city. It's citizens are refined and fast walkers. And despite having a high concentration of colleges and universities, it has always been a pro sports town.

It took me a long time to look at Boston critically. There was a time when most Red Sox fans were baseball gurus, who were knowledgeable of the sport and its history. But one humid August evening in 2003 I looked down at the Fenway crowd from an infield roof box, and saw tons of frat boys and girls in pink caps all double-fisting brews. It was a thrilling victory against the Mariners. I had been a fan since the age of 4, and I was still only 30. But I knew right there that I could no longer see the Sox live and not be bothered by those kids. I was certainly pleased to see Boston pro sports teams collect a mountain of silverware soon afterward. At the time of my final live game at Fenway, the Patriots had won two Lombardi trophies, and the Red Sox were about to miss the AL pennant in a loss more heartbreaking than the 1986 MLS championship series, because it was to their mean spirited, arrogant, arch rivals.

Part of my shift was personal. By 2003, I had lived in Brooklyn for 8 years. As 8 became 11, I moved to Manhattan, and as 11 became 17, I let the Red Sox go, and pledged my allegiance to the Mets in 2008, the only other real "Yankee Haters" in the majors (apart from their closeted Yankee supporters, of course).

Boston has always been home to income inequality. While it took a long time for its housing market to recover from the 2007-2008 crash, Boston is almost as hot as San Francisco or Manhattan. It's a wealthy town, no matter how much puritan modesty might be left.

New York is no longer a beacon of freedom. It is a glimpse into the future America, ruled by the top 5 percent, where the bill of rights is a list of dead letters for everyone else.

But it wouldn't take long for my birth city to get back onto my radar. In January 2007, things got ridiculous when unauthorized, illuminated ads were installed in various locations in the city. The reaction from Boston's police and mayor was despicable and embarrassing. The the freelancers who installed the devices were nearly charged as terrorists. And Menino didn't admit he and the state overreacted until the fall of 2013, when one of the freelance artists was hired to make illuminated displays for Boston's First Night celebrations.

Which brings us to how Boston reacted when real, yet totally baffling terrorism arrived in 2013. It was not the first time. Bostonians were terrorized by the British (of course in today's terms, that's state sponsored terrorism, or simply colonialism). The last time Boston experienced terrorism was in 1994, when John Salvi shot seven people in two separate Planned Parenthood clinics in Brookline, killing two. So Boston is by no means isolated from the rest of the US and the extremism and slaughter that can occur anywhere.

What happened at the 2013 Boston Marathon will continue to perplex people for generations. It does not fit any common pattern of terrorism on US soil. The US, as bad as it is in foreign relations and spreading war worldwide, is not interfering with Dagestan, where Tamerlan Tsarnaev (the deceased, elder brother) visited for a few months in a futile attempt to join Islamic militants in their cause to impose sharia law in the region. For reasons still not clear, Tamerlan went back to Boston and decided to carry out a bombing that would draw attention to himself and his cause, even though Bostonians were in no way involved in the issue.

Unlike most terrorists, he wasn't attacking civilians of a nation that was oppressing his people (he was a naturalized American). He wasn't protesting a military occupation, which is another primary motivator of bombings, and the overwhelming reason young people carry out suicide bombings. He wasn't carrying out an attack over a domestic issue (abortion and anti-government sentiment being the big ones). He was an angry, lost, perhaps even bored young man. He and his younger brother, Dzhokhar, could have carried out the bombing in whatever city he was living in at the time. So until we have a clearer idea as to why this bombing was inspired in Dagestan but executed in Boston, I cannot comment on the bombers themselves. But what I can comment on is the reaction, and how it forever ruined my relationship with Boston.

Simply put, Boston over-reacted. Consider this: had the Tsarnaev brothers opened fire with handguns or rifles, and shot dozens of people before being tackled or killed by police (who were all over that area), would the incident be classified as terrorism? Would there have been a One Fund? Would there have been “Boston Strong”? Would there have been weeks of media coverage, and a cathartic return to the finish line when the Red Sox surprisingly clinched MLB championship over four months later? And more important – would it have become a Federal case? Would the surviving brother be charged with terrorism had he used one or more guns and not a single explosive? Why did a crime that killed four and seriously maimed close to twenty get almost as much media coverage as the Oklahoma City Bombing some 18 years before? I argue it is because of two reasons. First, it was after 9/11, and second, the weapons were two bombs. Boston went nuts because bombs went off. What made this terrorism was not the murky motive, but the weapons used. And they were small bombs, comparatively, in the world of explosives.

And I would go a step further. I argue that that this always was a local crime, and not something that should have been blown into a Federal case. Don't Americans know the alarming levels of gun violence in their country, especially after 20 children where gunned down in December 2012? What happened in Boston did not rise to the same level of destruction and loss. Not even close.

Maybe my beef is with the DOJ and not the city of Boston? Oh, to hell with them both. Here's why.

In some respects, the BPD and marathon security did their jobs. No one with backpacks could have approached Boylston Street until security was relaxed a bit. All the elite runners had passed and thousands of people had left the area by the time the Tsarnaev brothers arrived.

Two black power bombs, and Boston's reaction was quite telling. There was a lot of frat boy and macho chest thumping over terrorists and how they should never have messed with the Commonwealth on Patriot's Day. Familiar words were thrown around, such as us, them, and USA. Boston's response was quickly branded by social media, inspired, in part by the Army Strong ad campaign. Because we never have government sanctioned rallies and protests, Boston took their rage to sporting events. The Bruins and Red Sox in particular turned their homes into "Boston Strong" epicenters. Politicians rallied around it. And it was nearly impossible to avoid the phrase for the remainder of the year anywhere in US news, pro sports coverage, and social media.

Boston Strong was more than a hashtag or rallying cry. It became a brand. It could be monetized. And the One Fund, the charity built to help compensate the families of those killed and pay the exorbitant medical bills of the wounded, raised over $70 Million. It had a far reach, appearing as big advertisements on the sides of douple-decker tour buses in New York City at its peak. As a socialist, I feel the nation should pay everyone's medical bills. The One Fund did its job to cover the medical expenses of those who were maimed, and it was closely watched and found to be a well run charity.

But my issue remains the reactions. We have the reaction from the young, pro-war males. Boston Strong, dude! Next up, the politicians. It wasn't much better. We saw how Mayor Menino and AG Martha Coakley racted to the 2007 bombing "scare." Did politicians fare any better when an actual violent event took place in 2013? Not really. And I really can't go much further without becoming more upset. Elected officials should lead. But often all they do score cheap points. In the old days, they would show up to a public event. Today, they just take to Twitter.

Then we have the reaction from the US news media. This was the most predictable, but still ridiculous. As I argued in my master's thesis back in 1998, news media create a template, or "master narrative," based on major events, and re-use them when a similar, or seemingly-similar event takes place. The Boston Marathon bombings sent the US news media cycle into 9/11 mode, minus the TV news ticker. The media ran with almost every lead they got, and once again, predictably, repeated the propaganda from the government. Without any verification, quite a few media outlets ran with the narrative that the bombers were foreign Muslims, and not US citizens. After all, who else bombs anything in the US in the 21st Century?

I am not the only one to argue that this incident was classified as terrorism because of the weapons used. Glenn Greenwald explains it a lot better than I ever could. His analysis, written about 36 hours after the bombings, is worth a read. His core argument is outlined in his fourth point concerning the media and government reactions:

"The reaction to the Boston attack underscored, yet again, the utter meaninglessness of the word "terrorism". News outlets were seemingly scandalized that President Obama, in his initial remarks, did not use the words "terrorist attack" to describe the bombing. In response, the White House ran to the media to assure them that they considered it "terrorism". Fox News' Ed Henry quoted a "senior administration official" as saying this: "When multiple (explosive) devices go off that's an act of terrorism."

Is that what "terrorism" is? "When multiple (explosive) devices go off"? If so, that encompasses a great many things, including what the US does in the world on a very regular basis. Of course, the quest to know whether this was "terrorism" is really code for: "was this done by Muslims"? That's because, in US political discourse, "terrorism" has no real meaning other than: violence perpetrated by Muslims against the west. The reason there was such confusion and uncertainty about whether this was "terrorism" is because there is no clear and consistently applied definition of the term. At this point, it's little more than a term of emotionally manipulative propaganda. That's been proven over and over..."

And finally, we have the most serious, and worst reaction of them all – the Department of Justice and local law enforcement. Public transit was shut down. The Bruins and Red Sox games were canceled. Schools were closed. Working adults were told to stay home. And SWAT teams went door to do to sweep searches of houses. That had never happened before in US history for an incident like this. This was not Chernobyl. Governor Deval Patrick, as great as he was before this event, committed an unforgivable sin against his citizens and the Constitution.

Let me see if I get this correct. Two gunpowder bombs go off on Boylston Street in the waning hours of the Boston Marathon. The bombs are planted by two young men from Cambridge, who, for lack of a better word, are total losers. They have no escape plan. They don't try to hide their faces when planting the bombs. In the crucial hours after the bombing, their actions speak volumes about their desperation and lack of planning. In a different order than I can recall, in the 26 hours following the bombing, they delayed getting out of town, bought snacks, witnessed an armed robbery in the store they entered to buy the snacks, stole cars, got into a shootout with the MIT and Cambridge police, killed an MIT officer (who the media and public then referred to as a victim of the bombing and/or terrorism), and went on a futile ATM run. In that hunt for cash, they mistakenly believed that if one ATM wouldn't accept a card and various pin numbers for a cash withdrawal, then the solution was to drive to another ATM and experience the same denial of service.

They were losers, Boston. Accept it.

And during this time, the FBI and BPD went to lengths seldom seen before in our nation in order to find their suspects. They locked down Boston and its surrounding cities, including the two big cites across the Charles River – Cambridge and Somerville. All MBTA mass transit was suspended. Citizens were advised not to go to work and remain indoors. All of this for two losers from Cambridge whose arsenal at that point included a pistol and BB gun.

I caught a lot of flack from friends and strangers when I argued back then than the lockdown of Metro Boston was overkill, unnecessary, and a sad, temporary loss of one of our most cherished American freedoms – the freedom to move about peacefully and at will, without having to show ones papers or abide by a curfew. The lockdown was bullshit, and I am quite happy to point that out until the day I expire. The argument can be made that the surviving Tsarnaev would have been found (and probably killed) sooner if there had not been a lockdown.

I have heard people backpedal, saying that the lockdown was not mandatory. If you needed to get in your car and go to a doctor or get Dunkies, you could have. And there are Bostonians who realize how over the top and ridiculous the lockdown was.

After the World Trade Center was destroyed, anyone trying to enter lower Manhattan south of 14th Street (and later Canal Street) had to show their papers to prove they lived in the restricted area. The WTC was a smoldering mass grave that smelled like chlorine and mercury. Over 2,900 had been killed. Our nation was virtually at war. Boston was locked down over two violent stoners from Cambridge. Need I say more? Apparently so.

What exactly was Boston doing? Did they want this to be bigger and more traumatic than it actually was? Did some really think that two gunpowder bombs on Boylston Street amounted to a massive attack from a foreign entity; that someone in the world had declared war on their town? Simply put, did Boston want a 9/11 to call its own? Did it want a terrorist event to define their existence for the next few years? Did they look at New York and think, "We like the way New York lost its shit after 9/11, and went all pro-military and pounded its chest and pretty much acted like an asshole for five years. We want to do the same!"

I think Boston flirted with the idea. But I am happy to report that it didn't stick. There will certainly be a memorial of some kind (one that won't charge admission at least). Boston has two memorials for great fires that took many lives - the Coconut Grove nightclub fire in 1942, and the Hotel Vendome fire in 1971. I expect something similar to be installed on Boylston Street in the months and years ahead.

Returning to Boylston Street the first weekend of May, 2014, I walked past the first bomb location, and past the video cameras at Lord & Tailor's that captured the bombers. I went into Starbucks next to my favorite Boston restaurant, Atlantic Fish Company, and saw a simple chalk board congratulating this years field of runners from around the world. I didn't see "Boston Strong" anywhere. Not one sign. Not one ribbon. Not one T-shirt. There was nothing to indicate that I was at the site of our nations last deadly bombing.

If that holds, maybe I forgive Boston a little. But not entirely. I knew when I graduated from university in 1995, that I would never live there. I am a New Yorker for the time being. I am still drifting away from Boston, despite it's slow admission that it behaved badly. Every so slowly, I turn my eyes to a wonderful little city where the living is good, the art is plentiful, and the cops really enjoy shooting mentally ill and/or homeless people. Bye bye, Boston. Hello, Albuquerque.

How did I react to the bombings? I might have overreacted, myself. I was losing touch with the Red Sox for years, but I severed all ties in 2013, and fully embraced the New York Mets as my pro baseball team. I made a point to travel to Boston less. I even made an effort to stop buying Gillette products. I went a little bonkers, even though I would argue I never went as bonkers as Boston did.

The title of this post comes from my partner, who was able to clearly tell me how to back off and let Boston have its moment. But I still wanted to publish this post, so I could explain myself and see how it holds up as the years pass.

A sunset view of Boston's financial district from the Back Bay, December 16, 2010.

Sports radio is an annoying format. It's mainly sports writers, shock jocks, and fans either yelling at or with each other. I have no business listening to Boston's WEEI sports radio, especially after the morning guys, Dennis and Callahan, mentioned my name on the air in 2005, followed immediately by the word, "idiot." Twice.

But on my latest drive to Brockton from Manhattan, I didn't have my own car with me. I opted to rent one, and I relied on terrestial radio rather than XM radio for most of my entertainment. WEEI's range is impressive. I think I picked up the station in Old Saybrook, Connecticut, just past the halfway point between New York and Brockton.

And for the first time, I heard something called the Planet Mikey Show. Mike Adams seems like a funny guy. He's from Pittsburgh, but he almost sounds like Seth McFarlane as Peter Griffin (the main character in Family Guy who has a Rhode Island accent). Mike and his sidekick last Tuesday night just couldn't avoid the theme for the entire city of Boston right now - that their pro sports teams were among the hottest in the nation as 2010 drew to a close.

The Bruins were running their predictable course of having a great regular season, followed by a painful playoff exit. The Celtics were in the middle of a long winning streak. The Red Sox had made two blockbuster acquisitions during the MLB winter meetings in Florida. And the New England Patriots, in just five weeks, had gone from playoff probables to Super Bowl favorites.

A common talking point repeated by all of WEEI hosts and guests is that the Patriots are now favored to win all of their remaining games, including all playoff games and the Super Bowl. The talking point is so common and pervasive, I wonder if everyone in front of the microphone was given a memo, Fox News style?

Coordinated or not, they're correct. The New England Patriots are once again favored to win the NFL Championship. I blogged about this before, in early 2008, and we know how that story ended. But this season is dramatically different. The Patriot defense has gotten better with each game. And in my opinion, this has been the season that finally proved that it is the quaterback, Tom Brady, who has made the Patriot offense great.

He has thrown to both good and great receivers. But Brady has this ability to elevate all receivers. He delivers the ball to them as if they are all named Jerry Rice or Deion Branch. Brady has surpassed names like Steve Young and Johnny Unitas on the list of great quarterbacks and has entered the territory of Joe Montana, Dan Marino, and John Elway. There is simply no active quarterback better than Tom Brady, no matter what Marshall Faulk or Tom Jackson currently say about the Patriots on television.

Boston's getting ahead of itself a little bit. Great things are happening in December 2010 (the Celtics and Patriots), but one of those teams needs to win a championship in order for 2011 to be remembred as a great year in Boston sports. But with 1986 and 2007 already recorded as great years, it is certainly understandable how expecations are very high for three of Boston's four pro sports teams in 2011.

The first test will be the Patriots playoff run. They have defeated all the top teams this season. For them, it really is Super Bowl or bust this time around.

I wish I had learned about this sooner. But news in Boston seldom travels out of the city (unless it's an embarrassing episode involving Mayor Menino).

Boston's most legendary rock radio station, WBCN, ended its 41-year analog broadcast run just after midnight on Wednesday, August 12th (here's how the station went out). The station will continue to stream classic and alternative rock from the 80s, 90s, and 2000s on HD digital radio and the Internet. It is most easily accessed on iTunes, in the Radio folder, under the 'rock' category.

I worked at WBCN's original Boylston Street location in the summer of 1993 as a sales / copywriting intern. I was in the only office with windows, facing north, overlooking the brick and mint green facade of Fenway Park. I mostly did traffic reports and put together media kits. But eventually, I got to cover the switchboard (Peter Wolf once called with, 'Hey this is Peter Wolf, who's this?'), write a couple of radio commercials, and attend a Lansdowne Street block party to send off Mayor Ray Flynn, who was chosen by Bill Clinton to become ambassador to the Vatican ('natch).

It was an unforgettable summer...to be 20 years old and working (albeit part-time) at the most popular radio station in Boston, a city that was undergoing a healthy economic, cultural, and architectural boom that continued into this decade. The current stream at WBCN captures a lot of songs from that era by such bands as Stone Temple Pilots, The Breders, Radiohead, The Smashing Pumpkins and so many others. I love my XM Radio, both in my car and online, but I do hope CBS Radio keeps WBCN alive online. The online stream acts as a kind of live memorial or historical archive (the classic WBCN station ID's from the 1990s continue to be used). I can see CBS shutting it down in a few years. But until then, we have a fairly good rock radio stream that captures the 90s rock revivl (the 'alternative rock' era).

It was Boston's first full-time contemporary rock station. It was the first commercial US radio station to play U2 songs. And it had the best morning show (The Big Mattress) for 28 years.

Just listen to the voices in this MP3 clip that closed out the analog broadcast.

Because it turns out that Joseph Sullivan, the principal of Gloucester High School, embellished the story of teenage girls forming a pregnancy 'pact' in his school. The didn't act disappointed when they got negative pregnancy tests. They didn't plan group baby showers. And they didn't give each-other high-fives when they received positive pregnancy tests. Those are the fabrications he told Time magazine, and it became a sensational national news headline last week.

Why oh why have some the most embarrassingnewsstories of the decade have come from my home state? When will this shit end?

No kidding. I went back into my pile of saved articles and found two great ones analyzing Dunkin' Donuts, "the most aloof fast-food franchise in the USA," as Bryan Curtis has written.

Among their findings: Like Dodge automobiles, Dunkin' is a male-centric brand. That doesn't mean that females aren't allowed (in fact, women make-up about nearly half of customers for both Dunkin' and Dodge), but it means that the brand has a "male" image and feel. Dodge has its ads that speak to guys and their desire for toughness and utility ("Yeah, it's got a Hemi"). Dunkin' is about quick service and irresistible beverages, pastries, and occasionally ice cream. Calories be dammed. And having the very large John Goodman as a spokesman certainly helps to reinforce the sell. Dunkin's dirty, florescent-lit stores are not warm and fuzzy at all.

Starbucks, it can be argued, is a more European and 'female' brand, that invites customers to sit and stay (a decent minority does). Starbucks has barristas who might ask for your name during peak periods, and take over 60 seconds to deliver a beverage, sometimes with a label and your name on it. At Dunkin', the guy or gal behind the counter pushes a button on a $10,000 machine, and your hot or cold beverage is ready in about 20 seconds.

And it is really something how Dunkin' Donuts went from being a Quincy / Dorchester chain favored by Bruins fans, to a mega chain popular with Patriots and Red Sox fans. It really is the #1 brand for the pickup truck driving Massachusetts male who loves pro sports.